JAVA or Flash--which is better choice for image zoom application?

Discussion in 'HTML' started by saneplanet22@gmail.com, Sep 5, 2007.

  1. Guest

    Hello,

    I am building a website that requires capability of users zooming in
    to examine perhaps hundreds of images. On every page there will be
    dozens of thumbs. By clicking each thumb, the user would be able to
    see a larger image and then "zoom-in" to see details.

    I have examined two technologies so far:

    One is flash-based, from http://www.zoomify.com/express.htm
    see my draft here: http://samsonhairrestoration.com/scratch/zoomify/1.htm

    The other is java based: http://www.xio.biz/htm_en/applets/XIOview/XIOview.htm
    see my draft here: http://samsonhairrestoration.com/scratch/xio_view/1.htm

    What we are trying to figure out is which technology provide the best
    balance between bandwidth requirement (time it would take for average
    user to see each image) and likelihood of the code running smoothly on
    the user's machine. It is very important to us that user does not have
    to download and install anything to see these images.

    Right now, i am leaning toward the java-based option. I have been able
    to reduce the size of each image to as little as 150kb (like the 1st
    image from right in my draft), while the flash option takes upward of
    1.35mb and there's no ability to increase compression.

    The java code is also highly configurable, which the flash platform
    has virtually no options and I haven't been able to get any support
    from the manufacturer. I don't know Flash myself and wouldn't have the
    time to learn to write my own swf file.

    Also my totally unscientific impression is that Java is more likely to
    be available than Flash, despite what Adobe would want one to
    believe.

    Or am i wrong? I don't want to invest the many hours it would take to
    build this site and then realize I bet on a loser.
     
    , Sep 5, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. On 2007-09-05, wrote:
    > Hello,
    >
    > I am building a website that requires capability of users zooming in
    > to examine perhaps hundreds of images. On every page there will be
    > dozens of thumbs. By clicking each thumb, the user would be able to
    > see a larger image and then "zoom-in" to see details.
    >
    > I have examined two technologies so far:
    >
    > One is flash-based, from http://www.zoomify.com/express.htm
    > see my draft here: http://samsonhairrestoration.com/scratch/zoomify/1.htm
    >
    > The other is java based: http://www.xio.biz/htm_en/applets/XIOview/XIOview.htm
    > see my draft here: http://samsonhairrestoration.com/scratch/xio_view/1.htm


    What's wrong with HTML? Link to larger images.


    --
    Chris F.A. Johnson <http://cfaj.freeshell.org>
    ===================================================================
    Author:
    Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)
     
    Chris F.A. Johnson, Sep 5, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Andy Dingley Guest

    On 5 Sep, 03:10, wrote:

    > I am building a website that requires capability of users zooming in
    > to examine perhaps hundreds of images. On every page there will be
    > dozens of thumbs. By clicking each thumb, the user would be able to
    > see a larger image and then "zoom-in" to see details.


    For "typical" cases, I'd go with a _good_ Flash-based solution over
    Java. ...and you know how much I hate Flash :cool:

    Watch the admin effort of Flash-based zoomers though. You need
    something that has an easy server-side admin.
     
    Andy Dingley, Sep 5, 2007
    #3
  4. On Sep 4, 10:10 pm, wrote:
    > Hello,
    >
    > I am building a website that requires capability of users zooming in
    > to examine perhaps hundreds of images...
    > I have examined two technologies so far:


    There is a better likelihood that a Flash solution will work on any
    specific machine. If you make a Flash solution find an actionscripter
    to make it. This will give you a better chance of having a
    lightweight application that lets you easily modify the content. (see
    Andy's comments)
     
    Travis Newbury, Sep 5, 2007
    #4
  5. Re: JAVA or Flash--which is better choice for image zoomapplication?

    saneplanet22 wrote:

    > Also my totally unscientific impression is that Java is more likely to
    > be available than Flash, despite what Adobe would want one to
    > believe.


    In my experience, on the four platforms that Flash supports (Windows/x86,
    Mac/x86, Mac/PPC, Linux/x86) Flash has a higher installed base than Java.
    However, Java will work on far more more platforms.

    The difference is total numbers is probably in Flash's favour, but is
    likely to be negligible either way.

    --
    Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
    [Geek of HTML/SQL/Perl/PHP/Python/Apache/Linux]
    [OS: Linux 2.6.12-12mdksmp, up 1 day, 7:47.]

    TrivialEncoder/0.2
    http://tobyinkster.co.uk/blog/2007/08/19/trivial-encoder/
     
    Toby A Inkster, Sep 5, 2007
    #5
  6. polaatx Guest


    >
    > Watch the admin effort of Flash-based zoomers though. You need
    > something that has an easy server-side admin.


    Hi Andy, could you please expand on "an easy server-side admin" ?

    Can you suggest any out of box solutions? I know nothing about Flash.
     
    polaatx, Sep 5, 2007
    #6
  7. polaatx Guest


    > . If you make a Flash solution find an actionscripter
    > to make it.


    By "actionscripter" do you mean a person who writes actionscripts? So
    you suggest staying away from out-of-box solutions?
     
    polaatx, Sep 5, 2007
    #7
  8. Brian Cryer Guest

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I am building a website that requires capability of users zooming in
    > to examine perhaps hundreds of images. On every page there will be
    > dozens of thumbs. By clicking each thumb, the user would be able to
    > see a larger image and then "zoom-in" to see details.
    >
    > I have examined two technologies so far:
    >
    > One is flash-based, from http://www.zoomify.com/express.htm
    > see my draft here: http://samsonhairrestoration.com/scratch/zoomify/1.htm
    >
    > The other is java based:
    > http://www.xio.biz/htm_en/applets/XIOview/XIOview.htm
    > see my draft here: http://samsonhairrestoration.com/scratch/xio_view/1.htm
    >
    > What we are trying to figure out is which technology provide the best
    > balance between bandwidth requirement (time it would take for average
    > user to see each image) and likelihood of the code running smoothly on
    > the user's machine. It is very important to us that user does not have
    > to download and install anything to see these images.


    In my opinion Flash is a clear leader.

    > Right now, i am leaning toward the java-based option. I have been able
    > to reduce the size of each image to as little as 150kb (like the 1st
    > image from right in my draft), while the flash option takes upward of
    > 1.35mb and there's no ability to increase compression.
    >
    > The java code is also highly configurable, which the flash platform
    > has virtually no options and I haven't been able to get any support
    > from the manufacturer. I don't know Flash myself and wouldn't have the
    > time to learn to write my own swf file.


    Do you know Java? If you can maintain and adapt the Java solution yourself
    then that for me would make Java the choice. Otherwise Flash remains the
    better of the two options.

    > Also my totally unscientific impression is that Java is more likely to
    > be available than Flash, despite what Adobe would want one to
    > believe.


    I've not seen any figures on it, but I think Flash is more likley to be
    available than Java.

    > Or am i wrong? I don't want to invest the many hours it would take to
    > build this site and then realize I bet on a loser.


    I think both will be around for the foreseeable future, so if you make the
    "wrong" choice you won't be backing a looser just second best.
    --
    Brian Cryer
    www.cryer.co.uk/brian
     
    Brian Cryer, Sep 6, 2007
    #8
  9. On Sep 5, 3:15 pm, polaatx <> wrote:
    > > . If you make a Flash solution find an actionscripter
    > > to make it.

    > By "actionscripter" do you mean a person who writes actionscripts? So
    > you suggest staying away from out-of-box solutions?


    No an out of the box is fine if it does what you want. If you are
    building it, get someone that "programs" in flash, not one that
    depends on the time line.
     
    Travis Newbury, Sep 6, 2007
    #9
  10. polaatx Guest


    > What's wrong with HTML? Link to larger images.


    Your question really made me think. I myself am always all for the
    simple, most usable solution. All my websites are text-based, for
    example.

    So I proposed to client to just do link to larger images for now
    because they have so many images and perhaps version 2.0 can have
    fancier stuff. And he agreed. He's in love with the idea of zooming
    into the images to show closeups of subjects hairline. It's a hair
    transplant place. But that also could be done by linking to cropped
    closeups of the hairlines.

    If you know of simple javascript to improve this process, please let
    me know.











    >
    > --
    > Chris F.A. Johnson <http://cfaj.freeshell.org>
    > ===================================================================
    > Author:
    > Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)
     
    polaatx, Sep 7, 2007
    #10
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Replies:
    1
    Views:
    739
    Keith James
    Feb 14, 2005
  2. Replies:
    1
    Views:
    538
    jfalt
    Feb 15, 2005
  3. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    425
  4. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    341
  5. miles.jg
    Replies:
    16
    Views:
    885
    Alf P. Steinbach
    Nov 14, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page